CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Primrose Bank Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements.
An inspector visited the home on 5 February 2021. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice in staff training, cleaning, use of protective equipment, testing, visiting arrangements and support with health advice. They were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infection.
This was not a full inspection and the service was not given an overall rating. The Safe question was inspected but not rated, so the report does not provide a rated judgement about the home's wider care.
Infection control training
Staff had access to detailed infection control training delivered through demonstrations and videos. Staff said they felt confident using what they had learned.
“The provider had ensured staff could access comprehensive and informative training in various aspects of infection control.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and free from clutter. Inspectors found that its layout had been arranged to reduce infection risks.
“The environment had been arranged to minimise the risk of infection and was clean and clutter free.” from the report
Testing and vaccination support
The home was taking part in whole-home testing. People were supported to make decisions about testing and Covid-19 vaccinations, with best-interest discussions recorded where needed.
“The service was taking part in the whole home testing process.” from the report
Contact with families
Staff helped people use electronic tablets and arranged distanced visits where possible.
“Staff supported people if they needed help to use electronic tablets and distanced visits were arranged whenever possible.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control training have staff completed since the inspection?
- 02How are visitors currently managed, including distancing, protective equipment and infection checks?
- 03How does the home support people who want to use electronic tablets or have distanced visits?
- 04How are testing and Covid-19 vaccination decisions recorded for people who cannot decide for themselves?
- 05What is the home's current process for managing a suspected infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and the Safe question only; it was not a full rated inspection of the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Primrose Bank Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier medicines problems improved but some capacity records inconsistent.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, a visitor and staff. They observed care and medicines being given, and checked care, medicines, training, safety and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received medicines safely, and were supported by trained staff. The home was clean and worked with health professionals to meet people's needs.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care was personalised, and they were supported with activities, communication, relationships and independence. Food and drink provision had been improved and reflected people's nutritional needs and preferences.
The previous inspection, published in April 2019, rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach about medicines. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made, so the home was no longer in breach. They did find some inconsistent records about mental capacity and people's ability to make decisions.
Improved medicines safety
The medicines problems found at the previous inspection had been addressed. Staff received training and competency checks, and people received medicines when they should.
“Medicines were managed safely and properly. People received their medicines when they should.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff's kindness. Staff protected privacy, promoted dignity and encouraged people to do things for themselves.
“Staff respected people's privacy and supported them to maintain their dignity.” from the report
Good food and nutrition support
The home had made substantial improvements to meals, drinks and snacks. Staff assessed nutritional risks and followed professional advice where needed.
“The provider recognised the importance of ensuring people's nutritional needs were met, in order to maintain a good quality of life.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in varied activities, maintain relationships and stay connected with the local community.
“People were provided with and supported to participate in activities to help maintain their social health.” from the report
Open management
The manager sought feedback from people, relatives and staff and used it to make changes. Inspectors found clear responsibilities and quality monitoring systems.
“The registered manager had created a culture that was open, inclusive and put people at the heart of the service.” from the report
Inconsistent mental capacity records
needs fixingSome records did not consistently explain people's mental capacity and their ability to make decisions about care. Managers said they would address this after the inspection.
“However, we found some documentation was inconsistent in relation to people's mental capacity and their abilities to make decisions about their care.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that the improvements to medicines management found at this inspection have continued?
- 02How do you record mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions, and what did you change after inspectors found inconsistencies?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people need help?
- 04How are people's food preferences, nutrition risks and swallowing needs recorded and reviewed?
- 05How do residents and relatives influence decisions about food, activities and the running of the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care; the provider was not asked to complete a provider information return. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Primrose Bank Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.